TheBoost said:

skyjedi2005 said:

The focus should have been on the Jedi, or the sith. That stuff interests me not no name cannon fodder like republic troopers and bounty hunters.

Interesting that a PT-hater like yourself would be so focuses on Jedi/Sith conflicts, as these were of extremely minimal importance in the OT. The "Sith" didn't even exist in the OT.

In the OT our focus was mainly on non-Jedi issues, except specifically Luke's journey. The villains were criminals and Imperial military. Most of the heroes were smugglers, poloticians, and shady businessmen.

You are quite wrong just because the word sith was never uttered in the original trilogy films does not mean it was not a part of the original george lucas canon. Which included the novelizations, the one from 1976 ghostwritten by alan dean foster mentions vader as the dark lord of the sith. Vader calls the emperor in the empire strikes back my master, and the emperor gets premonitions through the force, clearly when star wars was first written the emperor was not a sith lord but when lucas made empire and jedi he clearly was. He has the black cloak and cowl, he does not need a lightsaber or a darth name like sidious to be a sith lord.

Now the other refence to sith may not be canon, but as early as the 1974 draft the sith are mentioned. The jedi existed too only the name was longer jedi bendu of ashla.

And since Luke was training to be a jedi like his father, and star wars was from the adventures of luke skywalker i think jedi were of a large importance, the very scales of the conflict were decided by good or bad elites who were force users, the rest of the characters were clearly pawns. Luke was able to destroy the death star because he had the force, without the force the rebels would have lost, and the empire would not have been kept together without the emperors presence.

It was never from the adventures of Han Solo also Mark Hamill was the star and ford was a co-star, whether or not he upstaged hamill is a different arguement.